Back to Index ,

Whither Zimbabwe - A failed state? A "Parliamentary democracy"?
Hon David Coltart MP
November 16, 2005

(This speech was delivered at the symposium organised by Bulawayo Agenda and the Konrad Adenhauer Stiftung at Bulawayo on the 16th November 2005)

I have been asked to consider the question as to whether Zimbabwe is now a failed state. It is hard to define what a failed state is because that is such a relative term. Somalia is clearly a failed state. Liberia until recently was also a failed state. In Somalia today there is no functioning bureaucracy and the country appears to be run by a variety of warlords. The rule of law has broken down completely and the economy of the country has been set back to the dark ages.

Clearly Zimbabwe has not reached that stage and if that, namely Somalia, is the standard by which we judge a failed state, Zimbabwe is not one. Whilst the rule of law has almost totally broken down in Zimbabwe and whilst Zimbabwe does suffer from one of the fastest declining economies in the world there is still a semblance of law and most government institutions are still functioning, albeit badly. Furthermore Zimbabwe's physical infrastructure is still largely intact.

However it would be true to say that by first world standards Zimbabwe may well be considered to be a failed state. Indeed by international law standards an argument could be made that Zimbabwe is, in some respects, a failed state. In this regard it is pertinent to refer to be Responsibility to Protect Doctrine which is currently being debated in the United Nations. The essence of this doctrine is the following:

A. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself.

B. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war or insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.

If this standard is applied to address the question of whether Zimbabwe is a failed state then it clearly is in danger of being adjudged a failed state. Given the fact that 5 million Zimbabweans are now suffering serious harm in the form of severe food shortages, given the fact that 1.5 million Zimbabweans are HIV-positive and only a fraction are receiving the necessary medication, given the fact that the Zimbabwean economy is crumbling before our eyes and given the fact that the Zimbabwean government is either unwilling or unable to halt or avert this crisis, a strong case can be made that the Zimbabwe state is no longer able to fulfil its primary responsibility for the protection of its people. There is no doubt that without some form of peaceful United Nations intervention there is no prospect of Zimbabwe being able to recover from the catastrophe it finds itself in.

Furthermore if there is not an urgent invocation of the responsibility to protect doctrine by the United Nations, Zimbabwe is in very grave danger of becoming a failed state akin to Somalia. All the signs are already there. Fundamentally the failure to respect the rule of law acts like a cancer in any society. This is no more apparent than in the application of the land reform policy of this government. In 2000 High Court judgements were ignored with impunity. In 2002 the Supreme Court "rectified" the situation by legitimising what were patently unlawful acts by the state. In the last few weeks we have seen that, despite the protestations of the likes of Reserve Bank Governor Gono and Vice President Msika for no further productive lands to be invaded, those calls have fallen on deaf ears and the situation deteriorates by the day. At the very time that the nation is facing its worst food shortages ever many of the remaining productive farms are being looted in certain areas and farmers evicted in others, presumably because the local warlords in those areas have chosen to disregard the saner voices in the present government.

In addition the cumulative effect of the brain drain of the last six years is now seriously undermining a whole variety of institutions and professions. Until the present time many have been able to continue their operations on skeleton staffing arrangements but many of these institutions and professions are now facing total collapse. The domino effect of the collapse of institutions and professions on the rest of society is starting to happen. If this collapse continues at its present rate Zimbabwe's bureaucracy, such as it is at present, will also collapse. When the bureaucracy collapses law-enforcement agencies and the military will become less disciplined than they are at present and when that happens a very serious situation can develop. For it is at that stage that the current political warlords responsible for the chaos in the agricultural sector may be replaced by military warlords who have the power to pervade every aspect of Society. It is at that stage that Zimbabwe faces the danger of becoming a failed state similar to Somalia.

One of the most important restraints on any state becoming a failed state is if a significant majority of a nation's population retain faith in democratic institutions and hope in the capacity of those institutions to provide a way out of the nightmare. It is important to remember that a collapsed economy per se does not automatically result in a failed state. If a nation, despite a collapsed economy, retains a cohesive society then a state will not fall apart. In the darkest hours of World War II Britain was isolated and its economy devastated. At the height of the Blitz London was almost completely destroyed. However one could never argue that at that point in time Britain was a failed state. It is in that context that an analysis of the general political environment is so important in deciding whether or not Zimbabwe is in danger of becoming a failed state. In other words what is the state of health of our political institutions? Do people still retain some faith in those institutions?

The current state of Zimbabwe's political/democratic institutions
Zimbabwe's political institutions are under grave threat and many have been almost totally undermined in the last five years. One of the principal reasons why many Zimbabweans retained hope that positive change was possible as late as 1999 was because the judiciary was strong and independent, the police force was reasonably neutral, civil society was strong and the fourth estate, the media, appeared to be growing in strength. Sadly five years on the same cannot be said of these institutions.

The Police
In the course of the last five years the police force has become highly politicised and compromised. Since 2000 over 300 opposition activists have been murdered, some in cold blood, some in broad daylight, and some by known perpetrators. Not a single successful investigation of any of these murders has been conducted. During the same period numerous opposition leaders and activists have been arrested by the police and detained on spurious charges. In some of the more high-profile cases, such as the Cain Nkala trial, the police have been accused of partisan behaviour and of deliberately investigating the wrong people.

Senior police officers have been undermined through the allocation of land. I have no objection to land being allocated per se. I have no objection to police officers and others being allocated land on their retirement. However no person can do two jobs at once well, especially when one of the jobs is an all-consuming profession such as policing. I do not see how one can be a good police officer and a good farmer at the same time. Policing demands that one be at once posted 24 hours a day, seven days a week and farming makes similar demands. Through the allocation of farms to senior police officers they have not only been compromised but I think also distracted from doing their jobs as well as they should.

As a direct result of this compromise of professionalism the police have increasingly being used to do the dirty work of politicians. In clear breach of the Regional Town and Country Planning Act, the Urban Councils Act and the Housing Standards Act the police were used by politicians in May and June this year to unlawfully evict hundreds of thousands of poor Zimbabweans from their homes and vending sites in Operation Murambatsvina. In June I personally witnessed the police removing billions of dollars of goods lawfully held by informal vendors at Unity Village in Bulawayo. I am told that those goods were then auctioned by the police and the proceeds never found their way back to the lawful owners. I am not aware that any accounting has been given to the lawful owners of those goods and one can only speculate as to where the proceeds of those goods ended up. In the process the all-important trust between the people and the police was broken and as an institution the police force has been more undermined by Operation Murambatsvina than anything else that has happened in the last five years.

In recent weeks the police have once again been used to further the avaricious desires of greedy politicians who want to lay their hands on as much farming equipment as they can. Under the pretext of using the Farm Equipment Act the police force has been used to unlawfully seize billions of dollars worth of farm equipment which presumably will find its way into the hands of politicians who will not be able to use this equipment to grow much-needed food for Zimbabweans.

The Attorney General's office
Whilst there are some signs that the new Attorney General is prepared to turn over a new leaf the conduct of his predecessors during the last five years leaves much to be desired. Just as the police have not adequately investigated the 300 murders referred to above, so too has the Attorney General's office failed to prosecute successfully, or at all, any of these cases. In some instances perpetrators have been identified by High Court judges and yet the Attorney General's office has failed to bring these criminals to justice. In high-profile murders such as the murders of Chaminya and Mabikwa the alleged murderers identified by High Court judges have still not been prosecuted over five years after the murders were committed.

In the same period a variety of spurious, and ultimately unsuccessful, prosecutions have been brought against opponents of the regime. The most notorious example concerns the prosecution of Morgan Tsvangirai for treason. Almost equally notorious was the unsuccessful prosecution of Fletcher Dulini Ncube and his colleagues in the Cain Nkala case. In the latter case, despite very strong findings having been made by the presiding judge that the police were responsible for torture, no further investigations or prosecutions have been brought by the Attorney General's office either against the police involved or against the actual perpetrators of the crime.

But my concerns do not solely touch on political offences. In the course of the last 10 years Zimbabwe has been devastated by a succession of corruption scandals. To name but a few, Zimbabwe's economy has been undermined by the VIP Housing scandal, the Harare airport scandal, and the War Victims Compensation Act scandal. Recently we have been subjected to the spectre of Leo Mugabe being arrested on allegations of exporting flour to a neighbouring country. None of these old scandals have been adequately investigated or prosecuted by the Attorney General's office and one is left with little confidence that the recently exposed scandals will be dealt with any differently.

The Judiciary
Despite the Chief Justice's defence of the judiciary made recently at a pass out parade, the reality is that our judiciary has been severely compromised in the course of the last six years. Whether or not the allocation of land compromises a judge's integrity or independence the fact of the matter remains that a judge's effectiveness is compromised if a judge tries to hold down two jobs at one time. No one can possibly argue in good faith against the fact that being a judge is a full-time profession. Likewise no one can possibly argue that running a large scale commercial farming enterprise is also a full-time job. Neither can be done competently together. Just as policing requires a 24 hour, seven day a week dedication so does being a good judge.

Sadly the proof of this is given in a variety of poor judgements handed down by judges and more particularly by many judgements that have not been handed down at all. It is an absolute disgrace that not one of the 39 electoral challenges brought by the MDC in 2000 were ever finalised. Whilst there were a variety of reasons why that was the case the dominant reason was the failure of the judiciary to treat the matters with the urgency they deserved and indeed the urgency mandated by the Electoral Act . Tomorrow, on the 17th November 2005, in the Supreme Court the Presidential court challenge first started in April 2002 against the election of Robert Mugabe will take a further step when lawyers argue that the failure by the High Court judge presiding over the matter to deliver his reasons on the legal and constitutional arguments for two years is in breach of section 18 of the Constitution, namely the right of every person to have his or her rights determined by an independent court within a reasonable period of time. I do not intend to prejudge tomorrow's case; suffice it to say that most judiciaries the world over would be ashamed by such a delay in such an important case. After all there can be no more important case than a challenge to the election of a country's President.

All is not lost however and there are some pockets of light. The recent judgement of Mrs Justice Makarau in the March 2005 Makoni North Parliamentary election case is an example. Although the judge failed, wrongly in my view, to set aside the election she did make the important finding that food had been used as a political weapon throughout the constituency. Findings such as these greatly complement the efforts of those who maintain that the present government is guilty of crimes against humanity. For so long as judgements like these are handed down hope will remain, no matter how small, that the judiciary can still be used to expose human rights abuses even if the judiciary cannot be used to deal effectively with them.

The electoral process
With a lot of fanfare the Zimbabwe government last year reformed the electoral process through the establishment of the Zimbabwean Electoral Commission and a new Electoral Act.

Time does not permit me to critically analyse all the electoral institutions. Suffice it to say that in my view they constitute nothing but an elaborate smokescreen designed to convey the impression that Zimbabwean complies with the SADC electoral standards. However I do not believe that the changes are all bad and if the more independent commissioners on the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission would find some courage to stand up for what is right this institution could be used in future to promote democracy in the same way the Kenyan Electoral Commission, although ostensibly biased, did facilitate the peaceful transfer of power in Kenya recently. As a final word on the subject it must be said that this institution and the electoral law will need radical reform before any meaningful faith can be placed in the electoral process.

Civil Society
During the last 20 years a plethora of civil society and human rights groups have emerged in Zimbabwe. With the undermining of the formal political opposition in Zimbabwe the role of these groups will become more and more important. However even these groups face great challenges. If the human rights community is honest with itself it must admit that, aside from a few glowing exceptions, it failed to mount a meaningful response to Operation Murambatsvina. It was largely been left to organisations such as Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, the churches and foreign or underground institutions such as The Solidarity Peace Trust and Sokwanele to mount a meaningful response to these human rights abuses and to expose them. In recent weeks certain human rights organisations have allowed themselves to become partisan in the debate raging within the opposition and have failed to condemn objectively human rights abuses perpetrated within the opposition. In my view a human right's organisation's effectiveness in condemning violence perpetrated by the ruling regime is greatly undermined if that organisation does not equally condemn violence perpetrated by people within the opposition.

The Media
With the recent revelations regarding the alleged takeover of the Financial Gazette and the Daily Mirror by the CIO, and with the continued effective banning of the Daily News, Zimbabwe's fourth estate has been gutted. We are now left with only the Independent and the Standard as relatively objective sources of news. Even those newspapers are undermined by a dearth of investigative and critical journalism. The only independent radio stations are difficult to listen to and even they have fallen into the trap of being partisan in the current debate raging within the opposition. In the calamitous state that Zimbabwe finds itself in journalists would be well advised to remember one of the fundamental principles that underpins their profession - namely the obligation to fairly and objectively present both points of view and to expose the facts.

Parliament
Parliament has never been a strong institution in Zimbabwe. It was not so during white minority rule and it has certainly not been so in the last 25 years. It has always suffered from the disability that it is not adequately representative of all points of view. That was certainly the case when it only represented the views of the white minority and sadly no honest and objective commentator could say that the current Parliament adequately represents the views of all sectors of the Zimbabwean society.

Whilst there were some hopes five years ago that Parliament may become a vibrant institution it has been steadily undermined during this period. It is terribly under funded at present; its debates are no longer communicated to the electorate and most of its members talk past each other. As a result it has not become a forum for the resolution of Zimbabwe's grave problems.

Suffice to say that the institution of Parliament needs radical reform. However I would still argue that, like the courts, Parliament is not all bad and that there are aspects of it which have been, and can still be, used to promote a democratic agenda and to expose grave human rights violations. In the last year we have seen, by way of example, how Parliament was used to expose duplicate land holdings by ZANU PF MPs, to expose the critical state of our food reserves and to expose in detail the effects of Operation Murambatsvina in certain constituencies. For so long as Parliament can be used in this manner I believe that it should still be viewed as a meaningful area of struggle.

Zimbabweans at a crossroads
From my remarks above it will be apparent that nearly all of Zimbabwe's political/democratic institutions are at best under threat and are at worst totally undermined. As I stated above it is the faith in these institutions that often prevents any nation from becoming a failed state. Accordingly the critical state of these institutions is in itself a grave indicator that Zimbabwe is in danger of becoming a failed state.

It is in this context that Zimbabwe has reached a crossroads. In the last few weeks there has been a very heated and acrimonious debate about whether the MDC should participate in the forthcoming Senate elections. Time does not permit me to go into the various arguments in detail but in my view the debate is not about participation in the Senate per se but rather reflects a fundamental disagreement over the way in which the struggle for democracy is going to be fought in future.

I have been greatly disturbed by the intolerance displayed by people on both sides of the debate both within the party and in civil society. I believe that there are very strong arguments to be made both for and against participation which are set out below. In any event my view is that the Senate elections are an irrelevance and whether the MDC is in or out of the elections that will not greatly affect the tide of events in Zimbabwe.

Having said that the arguments both for and against that have been made can be summarised as follows:

Arguments against participation

Participation will be hypocritical
The MDC vigorously opposed the Constitutional Amendment Bill in Parliament including the provisions relating to the reintroduction of the Senate. Whilst the MDC did not oppose the reintroduction of a Senate per se it disagreed with the manner in which it had been reintroduced and argued that was not right that the nation should be subjected to the cost of such an exercise at this point in time. It is argued that in light of these points it would be hypocritical for the MDC to put up candidates for election to the Senate.

Participation will legitimise the process
ZANU PF had no mandate to reintroduce the Senate in the way it has and to that extent what it has done is illegitimate in the minds of the people. If the MDC does not participate in the election the notion that the Senate is simply a ZANU PF concoction will remain in the minds of the people. It is argued that if the MDC participates it will legitimise the institution of the Senate.

Participation will be costly and will drain the MDC of resources
The MDC had not budgeted on having to campaign in another general election within a year of the 2005 Parliamentary general election. Contesting the election will undoubtedly cost the MDC money it either does not have or money which is desperately needed for other activities such as the Congress which the party is obliged to hold. Aside from draining financial resources many of the party's members, staff and supporters are mentally and physically exhausted and it will be difficult to mobilise them to conduct a vigorous and effective campaign. It is argued that because of this and because of the fact that the elections will be rigged in any event it will not be a wise use of the party's resources to participate in these elections.

Participation will draw the party's attention away from the holding of its Congress
The MDC is obliged to hold its Congress by the end of January 2006. The senatorial election will undoubtedly disrupt preparations for the Congress, drain resources needed for the Congress and possibly be held at the very same time that the Congress is due to be held. It is argued that by participating in the senatorial elections the MDC will subvert its own agenda to that of ZANU PF and accordingly it should continue with its own agenda of holding a Congress and should not be diverted by participating in the senatorial elections.

Participation will undermine the party's relationship with civil society
Most civic organisations have strongly opposed the Senate elections. It is argued that the MDC should not jeopardise its relationship with these organisations by participating in the elections.

Arguments for participation

Participation will maintain the MDC's stranglehold on certain areas
As demonstrated in the recent Mayoral elections in Bulawayo ZANU PF now enjoys less than 20% of support in urban areas. ZANU PF has been forced into appointing Governors and commissions so that they can retain some control of major cities and towns. Aside from these appointed positions they have no means of accessing the electorate in urban areas. Conversely the MDC dominates the urban areas and through its Members of Parliament tightly controls political discourse in urban areas. It is argued that if the MDC does not participate in the elections ZANU PF will gain important footholds in urban areas which will be used to undermine MDC's control. It is further argued that the regime will undoubtedly use patronage to boost the image of ZANU PF Senators and to undermine MDC Members of Parliament. It is accordingly argued that the MDC cannot afford to relinquish its control of the urban areas by simply handing seats to ZANU PF.

Non-participation will deny the people the right to keep out ZANU PF
There are some areas where the electorate does not want any ZANU PF presence at all. This is particularly demonstrated in Harare and Bulawayo where overwhelming majorities have voted in favour of the MDC in some 6 elections since 2000. It is argued that if the MDC does not participate it will in fact deny people the right to prevent ZANU PF from having any presence in these areas and because of this fact it has to participate; anything less would be a betrayal of the people.

Non-participation will create in the minds of the electorate the notion that the MDC has capitulated
Following the banning of the Daily News and the silencing of other media outlets it will be very difficult for the MDC to convey to the electorate its reasoning behind any decision to participate or not to participate. No matter how laudable a decision not to participate may be the state media will undoubtedly portray any such decision as evidence that the MDC is in a state of terminal decline. In any event there is the danger that the public will interpret a decision not to participate as evidence that the MDC has either capitulated to ZANU PF pressure, or that it has no capacity to oppose the regime. In the absence of a clearly articulated and vigorously executed alternative strategy there is the danger that the electorate will view the MDC as a spent force and look elsewhere. It is argued in the light of these factors that the MDC has no option but to contest the election so that it can clearly and unequivocally demonstrate to the electorate that still has the willingness and ability to confront ZANU PF and that it is still a viable alternative political party.

Participation will exacerbate the divisions within ZANU PF
Whilst the reintroduction of the Senate has been designed to enable ZANU PF to patch up differences and divisions within itself by the appointment of losing candidates and disaffected members, the senatorial elections could in fact be very divisive. To this extent there is a real possibility that an MDC boycott could play right into the hands of ZANU PF by enabling Robert Mugabe to dispense patronage without having to go to the expense of an election and without him having to pay the price of exacerbating divisions within his own party which will inevitably follow the hype generated by the electoral process. If there is no election at all ZANU PF will be able to appoint 66 Senators in a very painless and cost-effective manner. It is argued that only by contesting an election can it be shown how much support ZANU PF has left. Even a low turn out will show that ZANU PF has lost the support of the majority of the people. It is argued that if the MDC participates that will not only force ZANU PF to spend money it does not have but will also expose serious divisions within ZANU PF. Conversely if the MDC does not participate ZANU PF will be able to perpetuate the myth that it enjoys overwhelming support through the country.

These were the arguments made by both sides of the debate in the run up to the meeting of the National Council on the 12 th October 2005. No objective commentator can dispute that the arguments made for and against are strong. This is not an issue on which absolutist positions can be taken. However despite these strong arguments, made by people of good faith on both sides, the debate has, since the 12th October 2005, degenerated both within the MDC and in civil society. The debate has been marked by growing intolerance. MDC leaders, some of whom have a long and distinguished human rights record have been called traitors and sell outs. Scurrilous things have been said against MDC leaders on both sides of the debate.

This is not a simple decision although it may appear to be so from the outside. It is incredibly complex and is not helped by the unbalanced and ill informed view of those who write from the relative comfort of academia or of civil society or of the US, UK or SA. When I see the vitriol (traitor, sell out, gravy trainer) that has been directed at people like Paul Temba Nyathi (who has spent his entire life fighting for democracy, was detained by the Rhodesians and who spent the 80s and 90s rehabilitating ex-combatants and fighting human rights causes) simply because he happens to believe that we have no choice but to participate, I am appalled. It seems to me that no-one has taken the time to consider that some of the people who are for participation are wise people, of great integrity and are, after all, entitled to a different point of view. Fundamentally we have to ask - are people entitled to a different point of view? Because they happen to take a different point of view does that automatically mean that that point of view is worthless and they are traitors?

What has become crystal clear in my mind since the 12th October 2005 is that this debate is in essence all about the strategies that we are to employ in future to bring democracy to Zimbabwe. At the heart of the debate is whether we continue to use non-violent methods as the sole means of bringing about change or whether we abandon that method and embrace violence. It has been argued that the electoral route is now dead and that there is no point in using that route any longer. It has been argued that it is futile to use the courts any longer. Some have argued that there should be a total withdrawal from all institutions, including Parliament. In other words it is argued that confrontation is the only means by which this regime will be removed.

Indeed the logical progression of a boycott of the Senate elections should be to pull out from Parliament and to boycott all corrupted institutions such as the courts. No-one can possibly argue that the courts are any fairer these days than the electoral process. Some leaders both within the MDC and civil society have argued that there should be such a withdrawal and that henceforth only overtly confrontational methods should be used to tackle the regime. The language of "non-violence" is thrown in by these leaders but the harsh reality is that the logical result of such tactics could well be violence and possibly civil war. The grave consequence of pulling out of these institutions such as Parliament and the courts is that one may be left with little other than the streets as an arena to confront the regime. When we are left with that then civil war and bloodshed could well become a reality no matter what the original intentions of opposition civic and political leaders were.

Common sense dictates that we would be absolutely foolhardy to even contemplate civil war. Although those calling for confrontation do not specifically advocate civil war that is the logical progression of where some of the methods promoted will lead us. When there is talk of "governments in exile", as some commentators have argued for, there has to be a reason for the government being in exile, and usually it is because young men are dying on the streets. This is not Southern Rhodesia in 1965. We do not have sympathetic neighbouring states that will provide us with bases. China and Russia are not falling over each other to provide us with arms of war. Most of our angry young men are reasonably well employed in South Africa and the UK and aren't exactly champing at the bit to come and sacrifice their lives in Zimbabwe. The people left in Zimbabwe are overwhelmingly weak - they are being starved out of existence and 1,5 million of our adults (the very group that would normally be on the streets) are HIV positive and very sick.

Furthermore it is important never to confront any opponent in the territory it has the most expertise in. The one area of expertise that ZANU PF has is in violence. Robert Mugabe's boast made in 1998 that he has "many degrees in violence" must not be taken lightly. One of the things that has deeply frustrated this regime in the last 5 years has been the fact that the opposition has resisted the temptation to engage in violent means of struggle. We are up against a regime that is champing at the bit for a fight as it knows that is the only thing that can save it - if it has the distraction of conflict it will then be able to blame the economic collapse on that. At present the regime has no-one to blame but the West and no one believes that. The regime also knows that it will enjoy the absolute support of its neighbours in crushing any violent opposition. But it has been flummoxed by the non-violent methods used to date. Accordingly whilst the use of words like confrontation is seductive we must not fool ourselves and think that the regime does not desire this. Indeed I believe that this method of struggle is precisely what the regime has desired for a long time.

In other words aside from the morality of a commitment to use non-violence, the promotion of methods that may result in violent struggle is not even pragmatic. In short the abandonment of non-violent methods may even set back the struggle to bring democracy to Zimbabwe.

We must also consider how calls for the withdrawal from institutions will be perceived by the regime. If one withdraws from using Parliament, the courts and other institutions the message sent to the regime is that the opposition has given up on the democratic route as a means of obtaining power. It does not matter whether the opposition remains committed to using non-violent means of struggle, notwithstanding its withdrawal from these institutions, because the regime does not know what is deep down in the hearts and minds of the opposition. It can only surmise what the real intentions are. It is perfectly natural for the regime to assume that the real intention behind the withdrawal from institutions is in fact a new resolve to use force to remove the regime. Once the regime perceives that, violence and bloodshed are inevitable no matter what the intentions of those in opposition were originally.

Am I arguing that we must therefore simply curl up our toes and accept the situation? Absolutely not - what I am saying is that a strong argument can be made that we must use ALL non-violent means to oppose and expose this regime, including peaceful civil disobedience, peaceful mass action and participation in processes that expose the regime and therefore weaken it, including Parliament.

It has been argued that peaceful, non-violent, forms of mass action have been tried and have failed - the last stayaway in June was a dismal failure. Thousands of our brave compatriots are not even in the country to help plan and participate in such actions. But I believe that the failure of the MDC has not been because we have been in Parliament, but because too much focus has been placed on that and insufficient focus and planning has been devoted to organising effective non-violent mass action. I think we need to employ all possible non-violent and peaceful strategies. I think we need to see these farcical elections as a means to an end not an end in themselves, as I have done since 2002. I was under no illusions regarding the outcome of the March 2005 elections, indeed I was pleasantly surprised having predicted in December 2004 that we would only win 25 seats! But the point is that it was only by participating that we could expose the fraud. No sensible person can argue that the March elections legitimised the regime - indeed it weakened whatever claims to legitimacy they enjoyed before the elections. I think we need to be in Parliament (farcical as it is), we need to be in the courts (biased as they are), I think we need to be demonstrating for a new Constitution, I think we need to be more innovative regarding peaceful, non-violent forms of civil disobedience - but the way forward is not "simple" as many would argue. The position taken by many people in the MDC, who have been fighting for human rights for decades, for participation is not motivated by self interest (it is conceded of course that there inevitably will be those who are solely interested in the gravy train but they are a tiny minority). Their argument is simply premised on the fact that all peaceful, non-violent means must be used to fight the regime. It is founded on the realization that if all formal structures, institutions and processes are abandoned then one is left with precious little other than civil war, which is just what this regime desires, because it is the territory they have great knowledge of and expertise in.

It is unfortunate that because the argument for non participation is so strong most commentators have fallen into the trap of dismissing those who take a contrary view as being solely interested in the gravy train and immoral. Having had deep, deep concerns myself for over a year now about the prevalence of intra-party violence within the MDC I know that there are many good people (who were against participation) who have now been forced into the so called pro participation camp because they are appalled by the threats and intimidation to support a non participatory stance made by the same people responsible for the attempted murder of MDC Director of Security Peter Guyu in Harvest House last October and the disgusting acts of violence perpetrated against administrative staff in May. Indeed one of the main reasons why Manicaland voted as strongly for participation as it did on the 12 th October 2005 was because non participation people came and threatened the Province to vote against participation. The Provincial leadership was not prepared to be intimidated, and ironically deliberately did just the opposite of what was intended by the threats and voted 13-3 in favour of participation.

I have argued for a long time that the use of violence to achieve political objectives has, more than anything else, been responsible for the chaos we as Zimbabweans find ourselves in now. The colonials used violence to overthrow Lobengula and used violence to maintain their power for decades. Zanu PF and Zapu used violence to wrest power from the white minority. Zanu PF used violence to achieve its goal of a de facto one party state and to suppress the opposition since 1987. I now see violence being used within the MDC to achieve political objectives and have no doubt, from the language being used, that a withdrawal from other legitimate areas of struggle (however pathetic) such as Parliament and the Courts inevitably means a commitment to employ violence. I appreciate that there are just wars - I am not a pacifist - in which one has no option but to employ violence. However in Zimbabwe, although the situation is dire and the regime clearly has no intention of handing over power, we have to question whether the MDC and civil society's commitment until now to use non-violent methods has failed. Some will say that it has because the regime is still in power. However I take a contrary view. I think one can argue objectively that the regime is dramatically weaker now than it was 5 years ago and is steadily weakening. Whatever happens to the MDC now, its legacy to Zimbabwe will be that it exposed the real Zanu PF to the world, it in so doing isolated Zanu PF and I think history will show that it has fatally wounded Zanu PF. Zanu PF is not dead but it has no solution to the problems it has created and now it is only a matter of time before it crumbles. Can we truly argue that there are grounds for a "just war" in Zimbabwe and even if there are, are there any other options out there?

Is it justifiable to deliberately sacrifice the lives of young men and women at this stage of this struggle? Is there not the danger that by going down this route we will in fact play into the hands of the regime by giving it just the excuse it needs?

In truth the debate that has raged since the 12 th October 2005s has very little to do with participation and far more to do with the founding principles of the MDC, such as our commitment to pursuing non-violent methods both intra-party and nationally. If the arguments made by those who are against participation are so absolutely morally correct then why does violence have to be used to reinforce them? There are other issues involved but those of us who know all about them have restrained ourselves in our efforts to do everything possible to regain unity. However I can no longer sit back and see colleagues who I admire and respect being trashed as they have been. As a human rights lawyer I have always longed for see truth, objectivity and balance and I see very little of that in this debate at present.

Having said that let me mention the following in closing.

I personally would rather not be in these elections. They are farcical, we do not have any money or energy to fight them convincingly and quite frankly I have so much else on my plate that the last thing I need is to be distracted by them. But a process of consultation has been done countrywide and a majority of our members, when the vote was taken on the 12th October, wanted to be in the election. Whether they are still so inclined I do not know given the chaos that has ensued, but that is not the point. Whether it was the right thing to consult on an issue like this or take a vote is also not the point - we have to learn from our mistakes, if that was one and I am not convinced it was. Having consulted and voted do we then just throw our constitution and consultative process in the dustbin? What single civil society organisation has consulted as widely as we did in September and October? Can anyone else provide a definitive view of what people at grassroots level were actually thinking? How can someone sitting in Chicago, Johannesburg or London know what people at grassroots are thinking? How does one explain that Manicaland, after an impassioned plea from Roy Bennett not to participate, voted 13 districts to 3 for participation

(and these were not gravy trainers - they were poor rural folk who have no prospect of becoming Senators)? These are hard facts but if we are going to be truthful they simply cannot be ignored. If I consider myself a democrat then I cannot ignore them no matter what my personal preferences may be. I could easily take the fashionable route of calling those so unequivocally for participation traitors etc but that would not sit well with my conscience. I also recognise that there are also some compelling arguments for participation, as compelling as those against. But ultimately it is of no great import in my view whether we are in or whether we are out because these elections are not going to change anything on the ground. Indeed the elections are a complete irrelevance - they will not solve hype-inflation, the collapse of the economy, starvation and crimes against humanity whether we are in them or out of them. They are not going to bestow any legitimacy on this corrupt, bankrupt regime. However from the tone of the articles written recently one would think that the elections are the be all and end all of the struggle. They are not - this struggle will continue whatever happens on the 26th November. The only useful thing in my mind that has emerged from this debate is that we need to redouble our efforts to pursue other non-violent and peaceful means of struggle as well as continuing our struggle through Parliament, the Courts, the media, engaging the international community etc.

With Zimbabwe being in such a grave state I believe that the only way in which we can prevent our beloved nation from becoming a failed state is if we all recommit ourselves to adhering to the principles of non-violence.

Finally I think these words of Martin Luther King are pertinent to our situation:

"I have decided that I'm going to do battle for my philosophy. You ought to believe something in life, believe that thing so fervently that you will stand up with it till the end of your days. I can't make myself believe that God wants me to hate. I'm tired of violence. And I'm not going to let my oppressor dictate to me what method I must use. We have a power, power that can't be found in Molotov cocktails, but we do have a power. Power that cannot be found in bullets and guns, but we have a power. It is a power as old as the insights of Jesus of Nazareth and as modern as the techniques of Mahatma Gandhi."

 "I am convinced that if we succumb to the temptation to use violence in our struggle for freedom, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and our chief legacy to them will be a never ending reign of chaos."

"Admittedly, non-violence in the true sense is not a strategy that one uses simply because it is expedient at the moment; non-violence is ultimately a way of life that men live by because of the sheer morality of its claim. But even granting this, the willingness to use non-violence as a technique is a step forward. For he who goes this far is more likely to adopt non-violence later as a way of life."

"The non-violent approach does not immediately change the heart of the oppressor. It first does something to the hearts and souls of those committed to it. It gives them new self-respect; it calls up resources of strength and courage that they did not know they had. Finally it reaches the opponent and so stirs his conscience that reconciliation becomes a reality."

I fear that if we do not use all possible peaceful avenues and all institutions (no matter how flawed they may now be), and if we succumb to the temptation to use violence, then we will guarantee that Zimbabwe does become a failed state. If, however, we jointly determine to follow the principles of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi we can prevent that from happening.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP